Regular Meeting
August 23 –11:15 a.m.
Building 1500, Room 1506
Minutes
Submitted By: JoAnn Galliano MEd., RDH
IPBC Membership
2005-2006
Laurie Dockter, Chair
Faculty
Carolyn Arnold
JoAnn Galliano
Chad Mark Glen
Joe Kuwabara
Cristina Ruggiero
Classified
Catherine Powell
Karen Silva
Rachel Ugale
Administrators
Robert Carlson
Tom Clark
Marcia Corcoran
Robert Curr
Melinda Matsuda
Daryl Minus
Gerald Shimada
Ron Taylor
Dale Wagoner
Members Present: Laurie Dockter, Carolyn Arnold, JoAnn Galliano, Chad Mark
Glen, Cristina Ruggerio, Wanda Wong, Karen Silva, Robert Carlson, Melinda
Matsuda, Daryl Minus, Ron Taylor
Members Absent: Joe Kuwabara, Catherine Powell, Rachel Ugale, Tom Clark,
Marcia Corcoran, Farhad Javaheripour, Marge Maloney, Gerald Shimada, Dale
Wagoner
Guest: Norberto Ruiz-Curriculum Committee Chair
I.
Meeting Minutes-The Chair asked for volunteers to take meeting
minutes. JoAnn Galliano volunteered to take the minutes for this meeting. She indicated that she would be willing to do the minutes on a
rotational basis. Carolyn Arnold indicated that she would be willing to do
minutes as well if it was done on a rotational basis.
The meeting minutes from the August 17th meeting were approved.
II.
Membership-Discussion involved who would be attending the IPBC
meetings. Membership is listed on the college web and was distributed
in the “College Governance” handout from Convocation Day. Wanda will
be the new representative from Institutional Technology. The lack of
attendance at the meetings was discussed.
Melinda Matsuda explained that the vacant ASCC positions would be
filled as soon as ASCC recruits more officers. They currently have only a
President and a Vice President. Daryl Minus indicated that he and Gerald
Shimada were discussing splitting the responsibility. Due to the
committee’s need for continuity, this approach was not recommended.
Discussed asking Michael Asher to represent the Budget Committee on
IPBC. It was agreed that someone from the Budget Committee participate in IPBC. Laurie will ask Michael to join IPBC.
Carolyn Arnold suggested that the Deans be asked to make sure that
their division has an IPBC rep. Language Arts does not have a designated representative.
IPBC – August 23, 2006
Page 2
III.
Discussion of Agenda Items
A. Convocation Day-The Chair shared that Marcia and Danielle would
be doing an evaluation form for feedback regarding Convocation Day
to be distributed to the staff. The returned survey responses will be
compiled for a report back to interested parties.
Carolyn asked what the attendance was at the Convocation day
activities. Ron indicated that he does not have staff member at the
present time to compile that information. He will re-assign someone
to review the sign up sheets and report back with the numbers of
participants.
Dr. Carlson reminded the committee that planning for Convocation
Day and Flex Day is a Staff Development Committee charge. They
should be planning the events—not IPBC. It was recommended that
in the future, IPBC and Staff Development coordinate the planning
for Convocation Day and report back through College Council.
Laurie is representing IPBC at College Council.
Laurie indicated that her group that met Thursday afternoon had a
very productive meeting on learning assessment. She also had a
request at her division meeting for updates on the progress of grants
in progress such as the Carnegie Grant. Carolyn made a note of the
request and will follow up on it.
B. Action Plan Draft Form
Laurie expressed the need for some kind of Action plan format to be
developed for reporting back work being done on the Strategic Plan
Objectives. Laurie, Carolyn and Wanda? will work on a prototype to
be brought back to the committee for review at the next meeting.
C. Timeline for IPBC
Laurie indicated that the committee needs to establish a timeline for
what we hope to accomplish this year. It was discussed that the
focus should be the college-wide Learning Goals. It was discussed
that we need to evaluate progress on meeting these goals at the
program level and the course level. No timeline or action plan was
outlined at this time.
D. Faculty Senate’s Charge: Student Learning Outcomes
(SLO’s)
Faculty Senate was given the charge to “Formulate and execute a
comprehensive plan for implementing student learning outcomes and
learning assessments for courses, programs and degrees.”
Dr. Carlson indicated that he would like to see the Senate formulate a
plan for the institution that would incorporate development of SLO’s
at the course level this year. The plan should include what measures
would be used to determine if the goals of the plan are being met.
IPBC – August 23, 2006
Page 3
The “how” determined by the Senate.
Chad indicated that there was never a formal report done by those
previously charged with working on SLO’s. He indicated that he
would like to utilize their input acknowledging the work that they
have already done. He indicated that as a starting point we should
codify what is being done.
Discussion centered on the issues:
v If the senate takes the lead, who do they want support
from? What type of support do they need?
Carolyn indicated that she felt that in order to move toward our
goal of college-wide learning assessment that the college needs
to take ownership of the charge. She indicated that there is to be
a statewide meeting on Learning Assessment to be held in San
Diego this October. Three individuals from Chabot are attending
at this point using funds from the Carnegie Grant. She felt that
the college needs to support more individuals attending this
conference.
Much discussion took place as to how attendance would be
funded if there were more representatives sent. It was suggested that the Senate choose individuals from each of the
divisions to attend. It was questioned as to whether Staff Development money could be used to fund these individuals since Staff
Development’s charge is to provide professional development
opportunities enabling faculty to develop ways to improve student learning. The cost per individual would be anywhere from
$700-$1000. It was noted that if this were to happen, a decision
would have to be made soon as the conference is filling up.
Benchmarks would need to be set up to evaluate the expectations of what participants would be required to do as a result of
participating (in-services, brown bag lunches?) and an evaluation
mechanism for determining if attendance did prove to be beneficial to the college.
It was agreed to send a group of three to the initial senate
meeting discussing the IPBC charge. Ron Taylor would be speaking on the need for Chabot to incorporate a plan for learning
assessment due to statewide accreditation mandates. Norberto
Ruiz would speak on what SLOs are not—diffusing the negative
myths surrounding (issues like academic freedom) and add a
positive “spin” to the whole SLO process. Tom DeWit would be
asked to wrap up using the information from his sabbatical report
which detailed how other schools are responding to the student
assessment mandate.
v How do we get the support of the institution? The college
will be evaluated on our Strategic Plan and the movement toward
a learning centered college. Learning assessment/SLOs are not a
IPBC – August 23, 2006
Page 4
choice that we have. It is a must do from the accreditation
standpoint.
Dr. Carlson stressed that is not a matter of “if” we develop a plan
for implementing SLOs campus wide, we must do this. We need
to take ownership for how we teach. This focus puts the responsibility on the faculty—not the institution. He also indicated that
many programs in the institution already are assessing student
learning outcomes and using them to evaluate student success.
v Giving the Senate goals may lead to a feeling of
disempowerment. What type of reporting would be
expected by IPBC? Action plans? Timelines?
Discussion centered on how to empower the Senate without
appearing to micromanage their actions. What evaluation
mechanisms and action plan formats would we supply to Senate
for reporting purposes?
A rough timeline was proposed:
*FALL:
1) The Senate would gather together “experts” who are already
involved in assessment of student learning to train others.
2) Information on student learning assessment could be dispersed
via brown bag lunches, in division meetings
*SPRING: Each division would choose at least one course that
they would work to develop SLOs for by the end of Spring.
v How do we counter the negative image that SLOs have
taken on campus wide? What they are and what they
are not.
Discussion that we need to have some kind of manifesto as to
what SLOs are and what they are not. Norberto articulated that
the conference that he attended this summer had a wealth of
information addressing faculty concerns that SLOs would impact
contracts, impinge on “academic freedom,” be used as an evaluation method for teachers. This is part of a statewide process.
We need to address the concerns in a positive manner.
He indicated that these fears are unfounded and that faculty
needs to understand that this is about student success. The
process of developing SLOs is not about demeaning educators for
being unsuccessful at reaching an expected SLO, it is about
evaluating what is working and what is not so instructors can
make changes to enhance the student learning and student
success.
IV.
Next Meeting: September 13